getEnabledTools

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about its role in tool discovery and when to invoke it, which is not captured in annotations. No contradictions exist, and it provides practical behavioral insight beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the most important information ('IMPORTANT: Run this tool first...'), uses two concise sentences with zero waste, and each sentence earns its place by providing critical guidance and purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (simple, no parameters), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, and its role in the system without needing to detail returns or inputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by focusing on usage context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns information about which tools are enabled in the full and minimal tool sets.' It specifies the verb ('returns information') and resource ('tools enabled'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on tool availability rather than operations on collections, specs, or workspaces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Run this tool first when a requested tool is unavailable' and 'helping you identify available alternatives.' It tells when to use it (when tools are unavailable) and why (to find alternatives), with no misleading or missing context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.